Perhaps a case to test carrying in a properly posted business?

[Oh Shoot]

Go re-read 39-17-1359a2:

 

 

39-17-1359 only impacts carry under 39-17-1351, not other defense under 39-17-1308.  Same reason law enforcement officers can carry past signs...  they only apply to permit holders.

 

You always say that.

 

Read it again. It does not state that it ONLY applies to permit holders. That sentence is there to make it plain that it is applicable to us also.

 

The proof is in the first sentence:

 

"An individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person ... "

 

There is no reason a non-permit holder could not be charged with violation of both 1307 and 1359.

 

I'm sure there's some overriding provision for LE firearm authority elsewhere in TCA. After all, being LE is not even one of the exceptions for illegal carry under 1307 either, so if you want to argue LE carry on a single statute, under 1307 no cop could legally carry a heater anywhere at all in public.

 

- OS

Edited August 11, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[RobertNashville]

Yeah, perhaps a lot of things are selective. I guess if this armed thug hadn't committed a crime, but instead was wearing a hoodie and looking suspicious the actions of the manager following him would have been okay in your book.

 

Yes I am selective and I would hope anyone who uses a firearm to protect themselves, especially those who carry in public, is also selective. I'm all for citizens protecting their lives and the lives of other innocent people; I'm just supportive of people chasing thugs through a shopping center or down a sidewalk or through a parking lot while discharging their firearms to do it - doing that kind of #### seems more like wanting to be a mall-ninja than a desire to protect life.

 

I'd have no complaints or issues with the actions of the store manager in the earlier instance or the store owner in this instance using deadly force during the time the threat exists (whether the thug was wearing or not wearing a hoodie and/or looking or not looking suspicious) because it's while the threat exists that a citizen has the legal authority to use deadly force.  Where I get selective is when the threat is gone because once the threat is gone (which is generally albeit it not always the case) when the thug is in the process of running away, that authority is also gone.

Edited August 11, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

... Where I get selective is when the threat is gone because once the threat is gone (which is generally albeit it not always the case) when the thug is in the process of running away, that authority is also gone.

 

Actually also applies even in your home, if can be proven ... even there your presumption of reasonable fear of death/injury evaporates if the situation that would cause such does.

 

- OS

Edited August 11, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[TMF]

Yes I am selective and I would hope anyone who uses a firearm to protect themselves, especially those who carry in public, is also selective. I'm all for citizens protecting their lives and the lives of other innocent people; I'm just supportive of people chasing thugs through a shopping center or down a sidewalk or through a parking lot while discharging their firearms to do it - doing that kind of #### seems more like wanting to be a mall-ninja than a desire to protect life.

 

I'd have no complaints or issues with the actions of the store manager in the earlier instance or the store owner in this instance using deadly force during the time the threat exists (whether the thug was wearing or not wearing a hoodie and/or looking or not looking suspicious) because it's while the threat exists that a citizen has the legal authority to use deadly force.  Where I get selective is when the threat is gone because once the threat is gone (which is generally albeit it not always the case) when the thug is in the process of running away, that authority is also gone.

 

 

I guess I'm a little confused.  You defended, or at least that is how I interpreted it, Zimmerman's actions of getting out of his truck and following Martin to the point of ridiculing people who said he should have stayed in his truck.  In another thread, however, you said that the manager who followed a man who had just taken his property by force under threat of death was wrong.  Now, I don't recall Zimmerman ever claiming that Martin had done anything other than look suspicious and run prior to their altercation.  It would seem perfectly appropriate for a person to want their property back after having it stolen, unless there is some law I'm unaware of that says you absolutely have to let an armed man take your stuff. 

 

Let us add to that scenario that the manager followed the armed man outside to see which way he was going when the man turned and pointed a weapon at him, to which he responded with deadly force.  Are you telling me that Zimmerman, doing the same thing to Martin who, up until that point had committed no crime we're aware of, was MORE correct in his actions than someone who just had a gun in his face and was relieved of his property? 

[RobertNashville]

I guess I'm a little confused....

So am I...you excoriated Zimmerman for leaving his truck so he could see where the thug-want-a-be went and could inform police (and then defending his life when he was violently assaulted) yet you seem to have no problem with shop keeps running through malls, and through parking lots and engaging gun fights.

[TMF]

So am I...you excoriated Zimmerman for leaving his truck so he could see where the thug-want-a-be went and could inform police (and then defending his life when he was violently assaulted) yet you seem to have no problem with shop keeps running through malls, and through parking lots and engaging gun fights.

You're dodging the question I posed Robert. It's okay, I understand why.

[RobertNashville]

You're dodging the question I posed Robert. It's okay, I understand why.

There is no reason to answer, especially when you "add to the scenario"; something I knew a while ago but forgot this morning when chose to respond to post #24 in the first place.

Edited August 11, 2013 by RobertNashville